c/o 2019 Applicant Compendium (2015 - 2016) Forum

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:25 pm

slippin_jimmy wrote:
Hildegard15 wrote:
Wikipedia redirects "Indian Genocide" to the Trail of Tears, AKA Jackson removing the Native Americans off their land. I'm with Wiki on this one.
I also think it's a fairly accepted way in academia to discuss Indian Removal framed as genocide. Because of the amount of death/suffering that accompanied removal.

But I also went to a school of "socialists" (jk we're not that liberal at all really).

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines it as follows:

[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

A number of the sub items definitely occurred, but the intent to destroy in whole or in part is a bit fuzzier.

barley · Post by **barley** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:28 pm

Generally wrote:
Hildegard15 wrote:
barley wrote:
Generally wrote:I'll add Andrew Jackson has many awesome qualities, and if you want to judge him by today's standards, you better do the same with Hamilton and all the others.
Genocide's not okay by any standards...
She's got you there, General. TJ and a lot of other major historical figures weren't directly responsible for the level of death and suffering that Jackson was.
Genocide is a bit strong of a word to use. Forcing Native Americans off their land is obviously bad, and Andrew Jackson was one of many early leaders of America who did that. It isn't good, and should be seen as a tragedy. Still I would reserve genocide for things like the Holocaust or Assyrians where people were specifically massacred because of who they were, not just removed from land.

Eh, it lacked the intent to fit the legal definition of genocide, but personally I've never felt that intent matters as much as outcome.

ETA: Scooped by Hoo2

slippin_jimmy · Post by **slippin_jimmy** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:28 pm

Post removed.

basedvulpes · Post by **basedvulpes** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:29 pm

Post removed.

Hildegard15 · Post by **Hildegard15** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:30 pm

Post removed.

slippin_jimmy · Post by **slippin_jimmy** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:31 pm

Post removed.

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:34 pm

slippin_jimmy wrote:
doublehoohopeful wrote:
slippin_jimmy wrote:
Hildegard15 wrote:
Wikipedia redirects "Indian Genocide" to the Trail of Tears, AKA Jackson removing the Native Americans off their land. I'm with Wiki on this one.
I also think it's a fairly accepted way in academia to discuss Indian Removal framed as genocide. Because of the amount of death/suffering that accompanied removal.

But I also went to a school of "socialists" (jk we're not that liberal at all really).
The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines it as follows:

[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
A number of the sub items definitely occurred, but the intent to destroy in whole or in part is a bit fuzzier.
Ehhhh I think there is a SOLID case of intent to destroy IN PART. Especially when you bring in the idea of Indian Boarding Schools that existed for the purpose of destroying all parts of their culture.

I'm sorry, I have a LOT of feelings about it. If y'all are ever in DC, the National Museum of the American Indian is really great.

This is one area of American history where I'm woefully ignorant, and what you're talking about could fall under subsection "e." Again, it is probably just my lack of education on this subject, but when I think "genocide," I think of the Holocaust and Rwanda, not the way the United States has treated Native Americans (which, for the record, is shittily).

The Native American museum is an amazing building, but the last time I went in there, they had like no exhibits.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:35 pm

Post removed.

slippin_jimmy · Post by **slippin_jimmy** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:38 pm

Post removed.

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:42 pm

slippin_jimmy wrote:
doublehoohopeful wrote:
The Native American museum is an amazing building, but the last time I went in there, they had like no exhibits.
TBH I'm worried that the National Museum of African American History and Culture will be like that, too, when it first opens. It just takes a while to get good, solid museum displays up and going.

Last time I was at the NMAI, though, they had some good tour guides.

Yeah, I'm really excited to see how it shapes up. I wasn't sure how I was going to feel about it from the renderings, but it is a really cool looking structure.

At least with the NMAI, I've heard that they have issues procuring and holding onto exhibits due to tribes being able to reclaim things. Is that something you've heard anything about?

barley · Post by **barley** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:42 pm

Generally wrote:
Hildegard15 wrote:
doublehoohopeful wrote: The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines it as follows:

[G]enocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
A number of the sub items definitely occurred, but the intent to destroy in whole or in part is a bit fuzzier.
I was just about to quote this. I don't think it doesn't count as genocide just because our government was apathetic about whether or not the American Indians lived or died as a direct result of our actions.
A genocide is trying to eradicate a group. All of those subgroups are trying to annihilate the group. Notice even the transferring is meant to transfer to another group so that the attacked group is cut off and not able to reproduce. A genocide tries to kill off a group, the indian removals were just that, removing them so we could steal their land, not stop there from being indians.

Can we just call it ethnic cleansing then and agree that Andrew Jackson is indefensible?

I agree that it's not genocide by a strictly legal definition (though I disagree with almost everything else you said in your last post), but in the end I don't think the definition matters that much/isn't worth debating in a law school admissions thread.

Generally · Post by **Generally** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:45 pm

Post removed.

gobears!! · Post by **gobears!!** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:49 pm

Post removed.

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:56 pm

Hildegard15 wrote: I don't think it doesn't count as genocide just because our government was apathetic about whether or not the American Indians lived or died as a direct result of our actions.

barley wrote: Eh, it lacked the intent to fit the legal definition of genocide, but personally I've never felt that intent matters as much as outcome.

All that matters is the rigor and the preftige of the law.

Hildegard15 · Post by **Hildegard15** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 4:59 pm

Post removed.

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:02 pm

This pitbull is taking a shower :3

barley · Post by **barley** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:03 pm

doublehoohopeful wrote:
All that matters is the rigor and the preftige of the law.

Random question because I have yet to catch on - why do people spell prestige with an f? I get that it's making fun of... something?

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:04 pm

barley wrote:
doublehoohopeful wrote:
All that matters is the rigor and the preftige of the law.
Random question because I have yet to catch on - why do people spell prestige with an f? I get that it's making fun of... something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s

jettison63 · Post by **jettison63** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:05 pm

Post removed.

urbanist11 · Post by **urbanist11** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:05 pm

Post removed.

gobears!! · Post by **gobears!!** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Post removed.

gobears!! · Post by **gobears!!** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:19 pm

Post removed.

barley · Post by **barley** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:21 pm

doublehoohopeful wrote:This pitbull is taking a shower :3

That's silly. Pit bulls don't need shower caps!

:3

doublehoohopeful · Post by **doublehoohopeful** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:25 pm

gobears!! wrote:
urbanist11 wrote:
Hildegard15 wrote: These convos breathe life into my otherwise boring days. We can't talk about law school for 6 months straight. gotta liven things up.
Oh how I wish it were just 6 months and not 11
I watch orientation videos to keep up the hype....Cordel is so cool.

I'm really debating whether or not I want to head down to Charlottesville before ASW. It might just totally bum me out reminding myself that I basically have to wait a year to quit stupid work and go to school.

urbanist11 · Post by **urbanist11** » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:35 pm

Post removed.